W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: feDropShadow and alternatives

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 10:32:32 -0800
Cc: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org
Message-Id: <4F8F4CF5-1913-4649-8ED3-526F15BC9802@gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>

On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> Have you considered proposing that syntax as an extension of the 'filter' property instead? E.g filter: [<url> | <drop-shadow-shorthand>]
>> Sorry, don't know what you mean. Do you mean a syntax how you can see it in the CSS spec?
> 
> I think there's clear value in having a canned "drop-shadow" filter in CSS, which is different from box-shadow in that it doesn't clip out the contents of the box.
> 
> Whether this is implemented on top of SVG filters or not is a choice for the implementor.

Depends on what you mean by "canned", I suppose. I had imagined that there would be some canned SVG to use as templates, but that anyone could write their own filters to use as templates and then call them in a standard way (see my new thread from a couple minutes ago). This would not, then, require a new property name for each filter that you might want to have varying values for, and the author could write such filters-as-templates.
Received on Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:33:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 18:33:07 GMT